Main Article Content

Abstract

Two field experiments were conducted at Yezin farm and Sepin research farm, Yamenthin, Myanmar to investigate the effect of different mulching materials on growth, soil moisture and weed infestation of maize and to identify the most


Two field experiments were conducted at Yezin and Sepin research farms, Yamethin, Myanmar to investigate the effect of different mulching materials on growth, soil moisture and weed infestation of maize and to identify the most suitable mulching materials for maize cultivation in the study areas during the dry season (October, 2019 to March, 2020). The experiments used randomized complete block design (RCB) with three replications. No mulching and six mulching materials, including rice straw mulching, rice husk mulching, maize stover mulching, mung bean stover mulching, soybean stover mulching and white plastic polyethylene mulching were tested. NK-621 (120 days) was used as the tested variety. Different mulching materials showed higher plant height and SPAD value than no mulching whereas rice straw mulching was highest at both locations. The highest LAI was achieved from rice straw mulching at Yezin. At Yamethin, the maximum LAI (2.19) was recorded from rice straw mulching at maximum growth stage (MGS), LAI (2.71) observed from maize stover mulching at tasseling stage (TS). The maximum crop growth rate (CGR) (13.31 gm-2day-1) was achieved from rice straw mulching at Yezin and (14.19 gm-2day-1) at Yamethin.  Soil moisture content and weed infestation were significantly different among different mulching materials at two locations. White plastic polyethylene mulching and rice straw mulching were observed as the most suitable for soil moisture content and minimal weed infestation. According to the results, rice straw mulching is the best in all parameters among the treatments for Yezin and Yamethin areas.


suitable mulching materials for maize cultivation in the study areas during the dry season (October, 2019 to March, 2020). The experiments were assigned by using randomized complete block design (RCB) with three replications. A total of seven treatment; no mulching (T1) and six mulching materials including rice straw mulching (T2), rice husk mulching (T3), maize stover mulching (T4), mung bean stover mulching (T5), soybean stover mulching (T6) and white plastic polyethylene mulching (T7) were tested. The most widely sown variety, NK-621 (120 days) was used as the tested variety. Different mulching materials showed higher plant height and SPAD value than no mulching whereas rice straw mulching (T2) was highest at both locations. At three sampling times, the highest LAI was achieved from rice straw mulching (T2) at Yezin. At Yamenthin, the maximum LAI (2.19) was recorded from rice straw mulching at maximum growth stage (MGS), LAI (2.71) observed from maize stover mulching (T4) at tasseling stage (TS) and LAI (2.00) achieved from white plastic polyethylene mulching (T7) at grain filling stage (GFS). The maximum crop growth rate (CGR) (13.31 gm-2day-1) was achieved from rice straw mulching (T2) at Yezin and (14.19 gm-2day-1) at Yamenthin.  Soil moisture content and weed infestation were significantly different among different mulching materials at two locations. White plastic polyethylene mulching and rice straw mulching were observed as the most suitable for soil moisture content and minimal weed infestation. According to the results, rice straw mulching is the best in all parameters among the treatments for Yezin and Yamenthin areas.

Article Details

How to Cite
Aung, Z. M. A., Zar, T., Htwe, A. Z., Nyein, L. T., & Oo, H. H. (2022). Performance of different mulching materials on soil moisture content, weed infestation and growth of maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agriculture and Applied Biology, 3(2), 97-107. Retrieved from https://jaabjournal.org/index.php/jaab/article/view/223

References

Awe, G.O., Reichert, J.M., Timm, L.C., & Wendroth, O.O. (2014). Temporal processes of soil water status in a sugarcane field under residue management. Plant Soil, 387, 395–411. CrossRef
Evans, S.P., Knezevic, S.Z., Lindquist, J.L., Moll, R.H., & Kamprath, E.J. (1977). Effect of population density on agronomic traits associated with genetic in-creases in yield of maize (Zea mays L.) Agronomy Journal, 96, 81-84. CrossRef
Gao, C., El-Sawah, A. M., Ali, D. F. I., Alhaj Hamoud, Y., Shaghaleh, H., & Sheteiwy, M. S. (2020). The inte-gration of bio and organic fertilizers improve plant growth, grain yield, quality and metabolism of hy-brid maize (Zea mays L.). Agronomy, 10(3), 319.
Gomez, K.A., & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley & Sons.
Hussain, S., Khaliq, A., Matloob, A., Fahad, S., & Tanveer, A. (2015). Interference and economic threshold level of little seed canary grass in wheat under dif-ferent sowing times. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 441-449. CrossRef
Iqbal, R., Raza, M.A.S., Saleem, M.F., Khan, I.H., Ahmad, S., Zaheer, M.S., Aslam, M.U., & Haider, I. (2019). Physiological and biochemical appraisal for mulching and partial rhizosphere drying of cotton. Journal of Arid Land, 11(5), 785–794. CrossRef
Kader, M. A., Senge, M., Mojid, M. A., & Nakamura, K. (2017). Mulching type induced soil moisture and temperature regimes and water use efficiency of soybean under rain-fed condition in central Japan. International Soil and Water Conservation Re-search, 5(4), 302-308. CrossRef
Kante, M., Revilla, P., Dela Fuente, M., Caicedo, M., & Or-das, B. (2016). Stay-green QTLs in temperate elite maize. Euphytica, 207(2),463-473. CrossRef
Kefale, D., & Ranamukhaarachchi, S.L. (2004). Response of maize varieties to drought stress at different phenological stages in Ethiopia. Tropical Science, 44(2), 61-66. CrossRef
Keshavarz, L., & Farahbakhsh, H. (2012). Effect of super-absorbent on physio-morphological traits and for-age yield of millet (Pennisetum Amercanum L.) un-der different irrigation treatments. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Scienc-es, 2(3), 149-156.
Khan, M. J., Monke, E. J., & Foster, G. R. (1988). Mulch cover and canopy effect on soil loss. Transactions of the ASAE, 31(3), 706-0711. doi: 10.13031/2013.30771.
Li, S., Li, Y., Lin, H., Feng, H., & Dyck, M. (2018). Effects of different mulching technologies on evapotranspi-ration and summer maize growth. Agricultural Water Management, 201, 309-318. CrossRef
Lithourgidis, A., Dordas, C., Damalas, C., & Vlachostergi-os, D. (2011). Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5(4), 396-410.
Meyer, L. D., Wischmeier, W. H., & Foster, G. R. (1970). Mulch rates required for erosion control on steep slopes. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 34(6), 928-931. CrossRef
Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (2020). Myanmar Agriculture Sector in Brief book, Yangon, Myanmar.
Oikeh, S. O., Carsky, R. J., Kling, J. G., Chude, V. O., & Horst, W. J. (2003). Differential N uptake by maize culti-vars and soil nitrate dynamics under N fertilization in West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-ment, 100(2-3), 181-191.
Ors, S., Ekinci, M., Yildirim, E., & Sahin, U. (2016). Chang-es in gas exchange capacity and selected physio-logical properties of squash seedlings (Cucurbita pepo L.) under well-watered and drought stress conditions. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 62(12), 1700-1710. CrossRef
Saif, U., Maqsood, M., Farooq, M., Hussain, S., & Habib, A. (2003). Effect of planting patterns and different ir-rigation levels on yield and yield component of maize (Zea mays L.). International Journal of Agri-culture and Biology, 5(1), 64-66.
Sarma, C. K., & Gautam, R. C. (2010). Weed growth, yield and nutrient uptake in maize (Zea mays) as influ-enced by tillage, seed rate and weed control method. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 55(4), 299-303.
Sharma, R. R., & Sharma, V. P. (2003). Mulch type influ-ences plant growth, albinism disorder and fruit quality in strawberry (Fragaria× ananassa Dusch.). Fruits, 58(4), 221-227. CrossRef
Shaver, T.M., Peterson, G.A., Ahuja, L.R., Westfall, D.G. (2013). Soil captivity enhancement with crop resi-due accumulation in semiarid dryland no-till agroecosystems. Geoderma, 192, 254-258. Cross-Ref
Singh, A. L., Chaudhari, V., & Basu, M. S. (2007). Boron deficiency and its nutrition of groundnut in India. Advances in Plant and Animal Boron Nutrition. Springer Publishers, 149-162.
Sinukaban, N. (2007). Effect of conservation tillage and straw mulch application on food crop production and nutrient loss trough erosion. In: Soil and wa-ter conservation key to sustainable development. Jakarta (ID): Publisher of the Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry Minis-try of Forestry. Pp. 1-14.
Talebi, R. (2011). Evaluation of chlorophyll content and canopy temperature as indicators for drought tol-erance in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1457-1462.
Tolk, J. A., Howell, T. A., & Evett, S. R. (1999). Effect of mulch, irrigation, and soil type on water use and yield of maize. Soil and Tillage Research, 50(2), 137-147. Direct Link.
Unger, P. W., Payne, W. A., & Peterson, G. A. (2006). Wa-ter conservation and efficient use. Dryland Agricul-ture, 23, 39-85.